A significant contribution to "fraudology"

(Continuation from the last issue of Art)

3. In the third chapter of the “Empirical Research”, the three components of the “attitude towards MOP” are linked to “personality traits”, nine in number, but here too it is “mutated” by mixing “traits” with “states” and “orientations”. Here too there is no theoretical context that would explain the choice of these nine variables (here they are: identification with the company; orientation to change; belief in a just world; loneliness; self-confidence; authoritarianism; perception of the style of behavior of managers; life satisfaction; presence of stress) so it could be said that with these variables the book is, first of all, “pumped up” so that it contains more data and it itself becomes thicker. Otherwise, the obtained data in themselves have their own interestingness and a certain relevance which, however, would be even greater if the data were interpreted more correctly. However, more valid interpretations are not possible without a proper knowledge of psychological theory as well as without knowledge of other studies on the same things. When the authors, for example, say, considering “loneliness and motivation”: “how would we interpret these same data if we were able to compare them with data on the prevalence of feelings of loneliness among employees in the countries of the region and, especially, the developed countries of Europe", then we have to say that they had to be "on occasion", i.e. they were obliged to look for such data, and find it, in studies "in the countries of the region and, especially, the developed countries of Europe" which had exactly that or something similar as the subject of their research. But they did not do that, in this case, as in the case of any variable/"trait". And therefore, I emphasize that these interpretations are incomplete, raw, , provisional, although, with all that, they make up the best part of this “unfinished” book. But if they had really done all that they had to, the authors would have abandoned the spirit of their book, which, in addition to everything we have mentioned, is limited, ignorant and provincial. And let's be clear, when we say “provincial”, the problem is not that the sample here was local, because many samples are like that, but the problem is that the measures obtained on this sample were not compared with the measures on other samples. Unreflected by a theory, which is not known except in a very clumsy and crude way, with a theory of achievement that is not known at all, these data themselves remain raw and crudely interpreted. And we say that they remain so because comparative observations were also missing, so it is exactly as if the geography of Montenegro is discussed while neglecting its measures, for example, on such dimensions as geographical longitude and latitude or, for example, altitude.

4. The influence of social status characteristics on employee motivation, as the fourth chapter in the second part of the book, has the excellent feature of being very short, which makes this turbo-folk “concert” all the more bearable at this point. However, although we thank the authors most sincerely for this, we must nevertheless note that, again, of course, due to their arbitrariness, something was missing that should not have been missing and which, if it had not been missing, would have improved the cognitive value of the book to some extent. What was missing was data on the basis of which one could gain, to some extent and to some extent, insight into whether the type of ownership concerning labor organizations in Montenegro is in any way related to any of the numerous variables dealt with in this research and this book. Having related questions formulated in the questionnaire, and omitting the answers to them, in these times of real or declarative ownership transformations - this cannot be justified even by the most severe deviation of (author's/researcher's) memory: here, in professional terms, it is about the principle of reality.

5/6It is precisely this principle of reality that psychology as a profession and psychologists as experts should take into account. The fifth chapter presents "views on the role of psychologists in the organization" (that's the title) which were determined using an appropriate questionnaire and, in addition, their (factorial) structure with two mutually contradictory factors is also determined (1. "organizations need psychologists" 2. "disbelief in the usefulness of engaging psychologists in the existing conditions") and this conflict of attitudes should of course be taken very seriously, much, much more seriously than our authors - researchers - psychologists do when, in the sixth chapter, they present "social psychological correlates of attitudes towards psychologists" (that's the title). I want to say (and that's why I mention the principle of reality), it should be clear to smart psychologists that "attitude towards psychologists and towards psychology" and thus the reputation of their profession will depend primarily on how useful it can be, in the most literal sense in which it is easily observed and easily measured. That is, after all, the most honest way. For this reason, the question of the planned master's degree must be raised above any improvisation and mere financial combinations - such a master's degree must contain real master skills, and they are so far from everything related to this ignorant and dishonest book, including its "practical implications and suggestions for action" to which we must now turn.

7. What, then, considering everything we have established about the book, can they be? "practical implications and suggestions for action" What is presented in her final chapter? Just as ignorant and arbitrary as her "theoretical approach to the problem" and just as undeveloped, raw, mutating, and provincial, such as the interpretations within its section on “empirical research”. This book, like its authors, knows nothing (but, absolutely, nothing!) about achievement training which, based on numerous researches and under the direction of rigorous theoretical explications, has developed in this field of psychology as its applied branch. Achievement training, based on Rogers non-directive psychotherapy and the theory of the self, precisely and in detail, defines the individual procedures that the "participants" have to go through in order to psychologically move towards economic achievements, so the effectiveness of this training is also precisely tested in each individual case (take it: McClelland, D.C.; Hinter, D., ibid.). It is a training and a skill that must be mastered during its development in order to be applied with verifiable success. But our authors, I would say, know nothing about such training and skill. Instead of everything that achievement training contains, they improvise here and invent "suggestions for action" in an arbitrary and ad hoc way, to say, in layman's terms and very naively, for example, the following:

"Specifically, initially, individuals and groups that have a developed achievement motive should be mobilized, and these are primarily managers... which characterize desirable psychological traits... to instruct the widest circle of employees on how to perform work tasks and restore faith in the power of work." (underlined by MS). In addition to the fact that what we are quoting resembles a belated call for labor action, we must note that at this point the book and its authors are just jumping into their own mouths. Whereas, in the first two chapters, they lament that “managers are still chosen according to political convenience... along the lines of family and godfather connections”, they now talk about the high motivation for achievement among managers who, in the opinion of our authors, would therefore have to “instruct the widest circle of employees and restore faith in the power of work” - that, therefore, such a mission should be carried out by these relatives and godfathers of dubious professional values. The aforementioned “jumping into their own mouths” is just one of many indications and details that show how frivolous these “practical implications and suggestions for action” really are and, in a professional sense, absolutely unfounded.

But the really serious thing is that we need to see something else that this book would achieve in the form of “practical action” and that is why we now need to subject our authors - researchers to examination. Well, we need to reconstruct their “position on MOP”, as we announced earlier. From such a reconstruction it will be clear why this ignorant, in a professional sense, and uncouth book was written at all and what, in doing so, were the intentions of its authors and the goals they wanted to achieve. Such reconstructive interventions, to repeat, fall within the framework of the psychology of science (take it: Maslow, A.; ibid; Glades, M.: ibid) and, not only are they completely legitimate, but in some cases they are absolutely necessary. Such a case is precisely this book and, even more so, its authors - more precisely, the first of them.

"Position on MOP" by the first author, we will reconstruct it by breaking it down, as is usually done with attitudes, into its (a) cognitive, (b) conative and if necessary (c) affective component:

ad(a) We have already convinced ourselves, as if it could not be more than that, that our authors know nothing (but, really, nothing!) about the theory, psychology and motivation of achievement. However, this does not mean that, in the case of this position, cognitive component empty. First author, R. Dunđerović Namely, he knew (since I told him) that I had once worked at MOP within an interdisciplinary project that he managed. Prof. Slobodan VukicevicAnd we can now clearly see how this cognitive component drives ad(b) conative: 1...a book of nonsense about MOP is being written, or rather improvised. 2. Prof. Vukićević is provided for the book as a reviewer and, as it will turn out, as a protector who will protect the book from any professional criticism; 3. A book promotion is being organized at the Faculty of Management: I remember how, apparently, with the help of a management “expert,” the promotion filled the Faculty’s amphitheater to such an extent that I had the impression, and I believe I was not the only one, that the book represented a great and significant event, one of those rare events that also entailed a serious step in science. And I guess, in order to confirm a great event in science, the promotion was presided over by no less than speleologist with which, we will note, the level of understanding of the theory of achievement in this sad story is finally established. Such a large amphitheater is not able to fill even the best novel of the year, only one of the rock-and-roll bands can do that, but neither can a book on empirical science, no matter how good it is, nor a book on empirical psychology. But what a very good book cannot do, a book-of-colorful-lies whose goal is to deceive us and, thus, achieve some of its para-academic goals can.

In fact, with the above suggestions, implications and stagings, we have "moved" from the field of psychology as well as the psychology of science and have even reached a field that is quite characteristic for this troubled and "transitional" time, which is known as scamology (take it: Bozovic, R.: “Twilight of Virtue”) without which it is not possible to define/evaluate this book and the context from which it emerges.

Why are we talking about para-academic goals? Because "taking money was the main goal", master's studies were conceived as an instrument, and a book on achievement motivation as evidence of competence for using that instrument. But, I hope, on the contrary, we have looked at it in detail and shown that this book can only serve as evidence of the absence of competence - and nothing more. But nothing less.

To be precise, and to reiterate, here we have a book written by a fool on a subject about which, however, its two authors, and also its two reviewers, as it turns out, know nothing. (For the sake of the first reviewer, I am very sorry to have to say all this. But, as the saying goes since ancient times: I liked the first reviewer, but the truth is dearer.) The fact that this book was written, that it was published and promoted, that it is probably used for academic purposes and that it has so far been protected from any criticism in a non-academic way - all of this, taken together, represents a serious symptom that is in direct contradiction with the society of achievements. (Hmm, with the society of achievements! It would be more like saying that this is a dark vilayet. Despite the appearance of the "comedian cases", to put it a la Crnjanski.)

If there is nothing of achievement, then, except in the title, what can be learned from the book presented? A lot. One can learn how to smuggle the subject you state in the title. One can also learn how to promote what one smuggles, presenting it as science, even as great, exceptional science. One can, in short, learn how to specialize in the field of fraudology, as we have already paraphrased.

In the meantime, as it should have been from the very beginning, psychology studies were attached to the budget, but the book “Motivation for Achievement…” remained with its spirit of arbitrariness, which was reflected, above all, in the master's studies. We believe that such arbitrariness is connected not only with the spirit of that book, but also with the fact that the master's degree in psychology itself was formed, believe it or not, under the direct leadership of a speleologist whom we have already seen presiding over the promotion of the said book. It would be good if, if the chairman allows, that master's degree were improved and freed from arbitrariness - that is not at all difficult.